Albasini racist?

[ChewbaccaD]

But if Chewie lives on Endor then Chewie is right

...that makes no sense!

 

[deValtos]

Are you seriously trying to argue that that phrase does not in and of itself denote prejudice and discrimination?

Prejudice is an opinion, discrimination is where you make actions on that prejudice. I don't think words without any intent denote prejudice or discrimination. Words with intent do.

Like I said before that's essentially the point of contention of this thread.

 

[SeriousSam]

Of course. You can insult someone without discriminating against them....

But the two types of insults cause equal offense in this example (per assumption). Where does the additional ethical wrongness comes from that makes racist slurs worse?

"It's discriminating against them" doesn't explain that, it's just a description of what is being said. I could likewise claim that calling someone a moron is actually worse because it's implying they're stupid, and you can insult someone without implying they're stupid.

No, unless I've overlooked something, the ethical wrongness of insulting someone in private is a function of how much you offend them. Using racist slurs is more reprehensible if and only if it causes greater offense, which depends on who you're insulting.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Prejudice is an opinion, discrimination is where you make actions on that prejudice. I don't think words without any intent denote prejudice or discrimination. Words with intent do.

Like I said before that's essentially the point of contention of this thread.

Even if the semantics of those words are such that they suggest heavy prejudicial and discriminatory content, and that there are literally dozens of epithets free from that content that could be used in the same context without the racial content?

Somewhere in Albasini's brain a conscious selection process must have gone on where a number of potential alternative insults that are not heavily loaded with racial overtones were rejected in favour of a word which does - especially when attached to an adjective that has long been used to denigrate black people. By actively choosing those words, he shows intent to offend by using racist vocabulary.

So I don't really understand the argument that "yes, he called him that, but we don't know if the intent was to insult along racial lines, so we shouldn't call him racist". Only if Albasini was not aware of the racial connotations of the words he chose. And personally, I have seen enough of Michael Albasini to feel that I cannot credit him with so little intelligence that he would not have been aware of the racial connotations of the words he was using.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You chose your nickname wisely indeed.


If a white rider was p!ssing him off, he would have probably used some other apparent traits about that rider to insult him. Sexual orientation for example, or some traits about that persons face, such as a long nose, or large front-teeth. Anything that will surely hurt the other one. You get the idea? It's the lowest and ugliest form of insulting someone, no question.

And no, what we need is the definition of racism:

Definition of racism (Oxford Dictionary)

I don't see it here


In a scenario where the group comes through and Albasini chases down Reza not because it's tacitcally sensible but because he's black and he doesn't want the black guy to win, now that would be a great example of racism, and Albasini wouldn't even need to be a KKK member for that.

If he does not consider himself superior, why use the term "DIRTY ******?" The usage of "dirty" denotes the view of someone who considers himself other than that, and thus superior to that state. As for him using other insults based on physical characteristics, I would again say that using YOUR definition, he would be prejudiced against that group. Also note that the definition you posted lists "antagonism" as an intent, and usage of that invective clearly fits.

And you don't need to be a KKK member to have racist tendencies. Nobody is claiming he seeks the separation of the races. But he harbors racist tendencies in some part to have used that epithet. If he'd called a gay person a ******, I'd say that he has homophobic tendencies. You don't choose words at random even in anger.

 

[dduff442]

But the two types of insults cause equal offense in this example (per assumption). Where does the additional ethical wrongness comes from that makes racist slurs worse?

"It's discriminating against them" doesn't explain that, it's just a description of what is being said. I could likewise claim that calling someone a moron is actually worse because it's implying they're stupid, and you can insult someone without implying they're stupid.

No, unless I've overlooked something, the ethical wrongness of insulting someone in private is a function of how much you offend them. Using racist slurs is more reprehensible if and only if it causes greater offense, which depends on who you're insulting.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it maybe has something to do with the history of slavery, colonial domination, 300 years of the Atlantic slave trade, apartheid and laws against "miscegenation". Do you think these things might imbue a racial insult with potential significance?

Calling Reza a moron insults Reza. Directing a racial slur his way insults hundreds of millions of people.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Even if the semantics of those words are such that they suggest heavy prejudicial and discriminatory content, and that there are literally dozens of epithets free from that content that could be used in the same context without the racial content?

Somewhere in Albasini's brain a conscious selection process must have gone on where a number of potential alternative insults that are not heavily loaded with racial overtones were rejected in favour of a word which does - especially when attached to an adjective that has long been used to denigrate black people. By actively choosing those words, he shows intent to offend by using racist vocabulary.

So I don't really understand the argument that "yes, he called him that, but we don't know if the intent was to insult along racial lines, so we shouldn't call him racist". Only if Albasini was not aware of the racial connotations of the words he chose. And personally, I have seen enough of Michael Albasini to feel that I cannot credit him with so little intelligence that he would not have been aware of the racial connotations of the words he was using.

Your post is much more eloquent, and much more clear on the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

 

[SeriousSam]

What, pray tell, then, would you consider to be more significant, the intentions of the aggressor or sentiment of the victim? Yours is the type of inanity that isn't even worth thinking about.

You're moving the goalposts, making it seem like you claimed the sentiment of the victim matters more and I said the intentions of the aggressor matters more. That's not what happened though. Here's what you actually said:

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that?

I disagreed and said it matters. I take it you have revised your opinion and now agree that it matters? My post was hardly inane, no need to apologize though.

 

[Jerkovin]

You chose your nickname wisely indeed.


If a white rider was p!ssing him off, he would have probably used some other apparent traits about that rider to insult him. Sexual orientation for example, or some traits about that persons face, such as a long nose, or large front-teeth. Anything that will surely hurt the other one. You get the idea? It's the lowest and ugliest form of insulting someone, no question.

And no, what we need is the definition of racism:

Definition of racism (Oxford Dictionary)




I don't see it here


In a scenario where the group comes through and Albasini chases down Reza not because it's tacitcally sensible but because he's black and he doesn't want the black guy to win, now that would be a great example of racism, and Albasini wouldn't even need to be a KKK member for that.

It always makes me chuckle when people start posting the "dictionary definition" of racism, a word "defined" while black people weren't even allowed to sit at the front of a bus.

 

[kingjr]

It always makes me chuckle when people start posting the "dictionary definition" of racism, a word "defined" while black people weren't even allowed to sit at the front of a bus.

Dictionaries are never updated, it is known.

 

[kingjr]

Somewhere in Albasini's brain a conscious selection process must have gone on where a number of potential alternative insults that are not heavily loaded with racial overtones were rejected in favour of a word which does - especially when attached to an adjective that has long been used to denigrate black people. By actively choosing those words, he shows intent to offend by using racist vocabulary.

Again, that's what you do if you want to hurt someone. I can't imagine anyone being hurt by being called an *******, apart from kids in primary school maybe. I just don't see it. It's too impersonal.

If he does not consider himself superior, why use the term "DIRTY ******?" The usage of "dirty" denotes the view of someone who considers himself other than that and thus superior to that state.

To add more weight to the insult, simple as that.
I'm not quite sure what you meant to say in the bolded part.

Also note that the definition you posted lists "antagonism" as an intent, and usage of that invective clearly fits.

I'll point you again to the second part of that definition.

And you don't need to be a KKK member to have racist tendencies. Nobody is claiming he seeks the separation of the races.

I agree with you, and I certainly wasn't the one who brought the KKK into this discussion.

But he harbors racist tendencies in some part to have used that epithet. If he'd called a gay person a ******, I'd say that he has homophobic tendencies. You don't choose words at random even in anger.

Well at least we've come to the point in this thread where Albasini went from a racist to someone who "harbors racist tendencies in some part", I guess that's something. I still don't agree with you though, I think it's absolutely possible for someone who considers black and white to be equal, and who at the same time is aware of the historical connotations of the N-word to use this as an insult.

The same applies to the second part.

 

[deValtos]

Somewhere in Albasini's brain a conscious selection process must have gone on where a number of potential alternative insults that are not heavily loaded with racial overtones were rejected in favour of a word which does - especially when attached to an adjective that has long been used to denigrate black people. By actively choosing those words, he shows intent to offend by using racist vocabulary.

There's no doubt he intended to offend Reza ... those words were clearly chosen to cause some severe offense. Can you think of something that would cause more offense ?

I remain unconvinced that because Albasini wanted to cause severe offense to Reza he thus automatically believes their races to be inherently ranked on different levels, or should be treated differently.

 

[difdauf]

It always makes me chuckle when people start posting the "dictionary definition" of racism, a word "defined" while black people weren't even allowed to sit at the front of a bus.

Just in barbarian country.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, that's what you do if you want to hurt someone. I can't imagine anyone being hurt by being called an *******, apart from kids in primary school maybe. I just don't see it. It's too impersonal.


To add more weight to the insult, simple as that.
I'm not quite sure what you meant to say in the bolded part.
I'll point you again to the second part of that definition.

I agree with you, and I certainly wasn't the one who brought the KKK into this discussion.

Well at least we've come to the point in this thread where Albasini went from a racist to someone who "harbors racist tendencies in some part", I guess that's something. I still don't agree with you though, I think it's absolutely possible for someone who considers black and white to be equal, and who at the same time is aware of the historical connotations of the N-word to use this as an insult.

The same applies to the second part.

That makes him racist, I still don't agree with you...

I'd love to have a witness who used that insult on the stand where racism matters. It would be an easy case.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

"He has racist tendencies, but that doesn't make him a racist"...

As has been pointed out, he had an almost unlimited number of things he could have said that didn't involve race...and you guys seem to think it was just some innocent choice.

Ridiculous.

 

[deValtos]

"He has racist tendencies, but that doesn't make him a racist"...

As has been pointed out, he had an almost unlimited number of things he could have said that didn't involve race...and you guys seem to think it was just some innocent choice.

Ridiculous.

Why is it that everytime you answer someone you change what they say ?

Everytime ... it's bordering on ridiculous now and is possibly the most infuriating thing to deal with when you're trying to have a discussion about a serious issue.

Someone who harbours racist tendencies is obviously a racist. No one will debate that.

Kingjr didn't say anything remotely close to the tune of "He has racist tendencies, but that doesn't make him a racist."

Also no one has said it was an innocent choice. (unless I missed a post?)

 

[rhubroma]

You're moving the goalposts, making it seem like you claimed the sentiment of the victim matters more and I said the intentions of the aggressor matters more. That's not what happened though. Here's what you actually said:


I disagreed and said it matters. I take it you have revised your opinion and now agree that it matters? My post was hardly inane, no need to apologize though.

No, you do not get the point. And it has nothing to do with moving goalposts. Your point, which Is utterly inane, is that irrespective of how the recipient took the racial epithet, the burden of racism only gets weighed against the intent of the one that made it.

Now I don't know if you are just incredibly cynical, or stupid.

 

[rhubroma]

Why is it that everytime you answer someone you change what they say ?

Everytime ... it's bordering on ridiculous now and is possibly the most infuriating thing to deal with when you're trying to have a discussion about a serious issue.

Someone who harbours racist tendencies is obviously a racist. No one will debate that.

Kingjr didn't say anything remotely close to the tune of "He has racist tendencies, but that doesn't make him a racist."

Also no one has said it was an innocent choice. (unless I missed a post?)

Racism doesn't only mean Jim Crow laws, as verbal discrimination, which means racial slurs, is also racism.

 

[kingjr]

That makes him racist, I still don't agree with you...

I'd love to have a witness who used that insult on the stand where racism matters. It would be an easy case.

Can't say anything to that. I have been in a courtroom only once, that was as a spectator 7 years ago and it was an argument about 1 m² of plot area or something

"He has racist tendencies, but that doesn't make him a racist"...

As has been pointed out, he had an almost unlimited number of things he could have said that didn't involve race...and you guys seem to think it was just some innocent choice.

Ridiculous.

As mentioned before if you want to hurt someone that number of things narrows down quickly. Especially when you are aware of the historic connotations.
It's an ugly thing to do, and he was way out of line, and he deserves to be called out on it, he deserves that his name will be associated among fans with this incident for quite some time. It will hopefully teach him a lesson if he's angry to hold it for a second and think about what he's going to say. I just don't think he deserves the "Racist cyclist"-stamp.

 

[deValtos]

No, you do not get the point. Your point, which Is utterly inane, is that irrespective of how the recipient took the racial epithet, the burden of racism only gets weighed against the intent of the one that made it.

Now I don't know if you are just incredibly cynical, or stupid.

If a person has a prejudice or discriminates against someone because of their race than they are a racist. If a person does not have a prejudice and does not discriminate against someone because of their race than they are not racist.

It has nothing to do with the feelings of the recipient. Where would you add the feelings of the recipient to my above statement ?

It's a separate issue. Considering the feelings of another person comes mostly under the issue of "not being a ****" and being a good person in life.

It's not an utterly inane point just because you disagree with it.

 

[_nm___]

Firstly, my last comment was merely a troll attempt which worked quite well. Secondly, your over-emotional response to my post has proved my point. You are just posturing and pontificating about someone who has said something stupid. Trying to create an analogy between my post and "pre-apartheid" attitudes towards racism is beyond absurd. You are trying to appear superior to everyone else by using hyperbolic and highly-emotional language to condemn Albasini and now me.

My point is that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I have said stupid comments in the past about people. I have had them said about me. I would say everyone on this forum has made a stupid remark once in a while. If Albasini continues this behaviour, then I would call for him to be suspended for a while but a racist must hold those views/attitudes over a long period time, not just be an off-the-cuff remark or moment of stupidity.

Take a deep breath, please.

are you saying it's ok for Albasini to say that to Reza once?

 

[_nm___]

Plus, Reza's the only black rider in the peloton and a 1st-year pro as well.

Reza is not the only black rider in the peloton (he is not the only black rider in the tour de france either)

but there are so few black riders arouond in european (and south american) races that it makes it very difficult for them to make their voices heard in situations like the Albasini incident (their natural reaction will probably be to pretend that it didn't hurt and everything is fine)

 

[_nm___]

If someone insults you first, you can insult back. So if Reza started (which is highly possible), Albasini has his rights too. Wouldn´t be the first time that a minority person would falsly accuse someone else to save his a$$. The rasism card always works. Which in itself is sad enough. Because the more it´s used falsly, real racism gets harder to spot & fight.

what exactly is "real racism"?

 

[SeriousSam]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it maybe has something to do with the history of slavery, colonial domination, 300 years of the Atlantic slave trade, apartheid and laws against "miscegenation". Do you think these things might imbue a racial insult with potential significance?

Yes, but only via its potential to cause offense.

If you believe this is (part of) the reason why racist slurs are ethically objectionable, what about being racist towards ethnicities that don't have such a history? Is it less wrong to employ racist slurs towards those people?

My position allows me to say that it's equally wrong if the same amount of offense is being caused.

Calling Reza a moron insults Reza. Directing a racial slur his way insults hundreds of millions of people.

Not in a private conversation. I agree that if it isn't a private conversation, racist insults are worse than other insults (that would otherwise be equally bad).

 

[SeriousSam]

No, you do not get the point. And it has nothing to do with moving goalposts. Your point, which Is utterly inane, is that irrespective of how the recipient took the racial epithet, the burden of racism only gets weighed against the intent of the one that made it.

No, that isn't my point. My point is that your claim is wrong. Let me quote your claim for the third time:

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that?

Wrong.

Where am I supposed to have said, or implied, the bolded?

Now I don't know if you are just incredibly cynical, or stupid.

The former, but not because I've pointed out an error of yours.